One of the trending topics today on Twitter was “Twitviewer” becuase of a site called Twitviewer[d0t]net which asks visitors to enter in your Twitter user id and password to find out who is “stalking” you. When you do, you get a sample of people on Twitter that are not even following you as stated in this Mashable post. The app also sends out a tweet using your credentials stating: “Want to know whos stalking you on twitter!?: hxxp://TwitViewer[d0t]net”. If you did fall victim to this you better change your password ASAP! Check out the screenshot of the site before it was taken down…yeah, phishy indeed.

Who knows what the developers of this application were planning (malicious or others). Regardless, you should never give a third party site (especially ones that look phishy like this one) your Twitter credentials. In fact, I recommend you only use third party Twitter sites that use OAuth for authenticating you to Twitter. That way you don’t have to give your credentials to the web site and worry about them being compromised. Also, look to see what the purpose of the site is before you give the jewels away…if it’s a way to see who’s following you, enter credentials to get millions of followers, etc…then it’s probably a scam or just completely useless.

Think about this. If the developer of a site like this wanted to they could easily use your captured Twitter credentials and start trying them on other social networks and/or web mail services. They can then use these credentials for anything else they wanted. Unfortunatly, most users of these sites use the same password for everything. Again, this is a reminder to use a password manager if you are one of those that use the same user id/password for everything. See this article for more information on password managers and social media web sites.

Share and Enjoy

As many who follow news on privacy and technology know, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart recently issued a report criticizing Facebook for various problems with privacy on the site. The report addressed several aspects of privacy on Facebook, including data access by third-party applications.

One item in the report, though, concerned data retention by Facebook. As TechCrunch describes:

The organization and Commissioner’s main concern is that Facebook provides confusing or incomplete information about its privacy practices, like not giving users to opportunity to complete wipe out their accounts instead of merely deactivating them. Stoddart also criticizes Facebook’s policy of indefinitely keeping the personal information of people who have done just that.

Commissioner Stoddart is not the first to raise this issue, as it’s been a subject of debate for some time. However, I have not heard many people discuss a related aspect: data retention by third-party applications.

Unfortunately, with the way the Facebook Platform is currently structured, applications receive no notification when a user removes an application’s access to their data or shuts down their Facebook account. Consequently, an application developer has no way to determine when a user has “uninstalled” the application, and thus for most applications, data retention lasts forever. You can see this in action by removing an application then later authorizing it again: all of your data generated within the application will likely remain. For some applications, this data continues to be accessible to other users even if you’ve uninstalled the application.

And this is not simply a Facebook problem. From what I understand so far, the same issue applies to OpenSocial platforms, such as MySpace.

Granted, there’s not simple solution to this problem, but as concerns grow over the amount of data shared on social networking sites, third-party data retention policies will have to enter the discussion at some point. One can argue that each application developer is responsible for their own policies, but most applications probably have no policy, and lack of notification on uninstall makes any policy difficult to implement.

Update (8/26): Upon further research, I discovered that I was quite incorrect with this blog post; my apologies to Facebook for making an erroneous statement about the Facebook Platform. Facebook does, in fact, allow developers to set a post-remove URL which is notified when a user removes an application. Apparently my experience has mostly been with applications which do not take advantage of this feature, meaning the issue primarily lies with application developers, not Facebook. I do wonder how many applications actually remove data upon uninstallation.

About two months ago, I mentioned that one Facebook application had a hole which allowed me to view the photo albums of any Facebook user whose privacy settings allowed it. I imagine that many users do not realize that access for “Everybody” is the default setting when creating a new album, so while the issue did not technically violate anyone’s privacy, it would probably come as a surprise to many people.

Turns out developers had already built applications whose sole purpose was accessing public photo albums. Since these albums were set to public access, the applications simply made API calls consistent with the album’s privacy settings. CNET News now reports that Facebook has taken action to prevent such access via the API. Since the albums are still public, you could still access them if you had the direct URI, but the difficulty of finding the URI gives users the illusion of control without requiring them to understand the ramifications of the default setting.

The key to this whole story can be found in this statement from the CNET article:

A Facebook spokesperson said the company made the change so the technology more closely matched users’ privacy expectations.

Some people seem to think that Facebook should be more public and open – that users should get over any illusions of keeping information private on the Internet and embrace free exchange of ideas without annoying filters and controls. People endorsing this perspective may wonder why I spend so much time talking about privacy on Facebook. For instance, some may view highly targeted advertising as a benefit, since it can provide users with relevant ads that link them to services they would want.

I recall a blogger (I can’t remember where I read this; if anyone has a link, please let me know so I can give credit where it’s due) once remarking that if a site uses someone’s personal information in an unexpected way, that’s an invasion of privacy, but if something useful happens in an expected way, it’s a feature. Privacy comes back to user expectations.

And that’s one of the major problems I see with privacy on Facebook right now. I don’t consider myself a “privacy fundamentalist.” I simply believe users should have control over their information and be aware of how it’s used. If Facebook users want public profiles or highly targeted advertising, so be it. But make sure those users are aware of what’s going on – sell them on the benefits while being realistic about the risks.

If social networking sites want to strike a good balance on privacy, they need to match user expectations. Adding new features may require changing those expectations (the News Feed comes to mind), and that can happen through education, other helpful features, and time. But iwhen the state of privacy on a site races ahead of what users expect to happen, that’s a problem waiting to happen.

And that’s the way I see Facebook right now. Vulnerabilities in applications leave personal information at risk. Application advertising networks process vast quantities of personal information to target ads (yes, Facebook does too, but their relationship to the user is quite different). Rogue applications can steal personal information. All the while, Facebook trumpets their extensive privacy controls, and I continue to get shocked reactions when I explain or demonstrate to people what’s actually happening with their personal information.

And that’s why I keep talking about privacy in social networking applications.

One issue I have not discussed much previously is how much of your data an application can access via a friend’s session. I and others have had to sort through some confusion on this topic, and I appreciate recentwork by Ian Glazer to clear things up. As you can see from my comments on Glazer’s second post about his Privacy Mirror, I did not fully understand how things worked until Glazer posted his more detailed explanation of his findings:

It shouldn’t take a few hundred lines of PHP, three debuggers, and an engineering degree to figure out how privacy controls work. This lack of clarity robs Facebook users of the opportunity to make meaningful and informed choices about their privacy.

What Glazer found is that when a user restricts how much profile data is available to applications through friend’s sessions, those restrictions only apply if the user does not also authorize the application. Once you install an application, all of your data is available in any friend’s session (subject to profile restrictions).

In Facebook’s defense, they do technically say this on the application privacy settings page, though I think it could be made more clear. I certainly didn’t comprehend all the ramifications at first:

When a friend of yours allows an application to access their information, that application may also access any information about you that your friend can already see….

You can use the controls on this page to limit what types of information your friends can see about you through applications. Please note that this is only for applications you do not use yourself…

One could easily argue that this is a case of incompetence on my part for not making sense of what Facebook said, but I know that other security researchers have also missed some of these caveats or didn’t put them all together.

As Glazer points out, Facebook provides an easy way to tell how much information a friend can access via your profile, but provides no simple way for letting you know how much data applications can access. Apparently, though, the answer is rather simple, since besides a few special cases, an application still basically has full access.

I never want to come across to harshly when talking about Facebook; I honestly believe they want to protect user privacy and security. But while Facebook continues to hone and publicize the privacy controls in their own features, they seem to ignore major issues with Facebook applications. Some might argue that applications are not under Facebook’s control, but this ignores changes Facebook could make which would help protect users. I can only think that Facebook does not want to risk alienating developers any further.

In turn, many developers seem to shift responsibility to end users. Recently I read back over coverage from ReadWriteWeb and the BBC on rogue Facebook applications, along with a discussion on Facebook’s developer forum. While the reports admittedly included sensationalist elements, I was surprised to see commenters taking the position that rogue applications weren’t a problem, since users authorize applications to access their profile data. In essence, if an application steals data, it’s the user’s fault for letting it.

This perspective fails to take into account the average user’s understanding of how applications access and share data, not to mention how little control a user has over applications. And most users would probably be shocked by how even mainstream applications make use of profile information to target advertisements. Many of these applications and advertising networks again take a hands-off approach, noting that a user could opt out of such programs. But what are the chances of a user even realizing this, much less taking the time to figure out how?

Advertising in applications made a few headlines this weekend, after a message on user privacy made the rounds on Facebook. The message did not actually address application ads, but in a statement on the message, Facebook deflected attention from their own ads to talk about application ads, and painted a rather rosy picture of user privacy on the Platform. I respectfully disagree with their assessment.

First, let’s clarify: the original viral message on profile pictures in ads pointed to an actual privacy setting which controls whether your profile picture appears in Facebook Ads. This was never about the application ad networks Facebook brought up in their statement.

Second, consider why Facebook banned SocialHour and SocialReach. From what I understood at the time, Facebook had a problem with the ads falsely implying that friends had taken certain actions (e.g. taking a quiz). Facebook did not seem to address the issue of profile pictures being used in the advertisements, and the practice has continued on many advertising networks to this day.

I was honestly rather surprised by Facebook’s statement, since it seemed to imply that all was well with application advertising. I then became shocked when I read the update Nick O’Neill posted after digging for more information:

I’ve spoken to Facebook and they’ve made some relatively strong statements, the most important of which was that ad networks “need permission from the owner of whatever photo they use.” That means unless an ad network asked for permission to use your image, they can’t use it. Additionally, here are the policies that are applicable according to Facebook:

The data section of the platform guidelines indicates that just because a developer gets access to user data doesn’t mean that they can use it

Developers are not allowed to pass user data they get from FB to ad networks.

Apps cannot break the law, and there are rights of publicity issues that come into play here. Facebook is granted permission in the terms to use a user’s photo in an ad but this permission does not extend to developers or ad networks.

Not doing anything misleading (indicating a user has taken a quiz when they haven’t is misleading)

Seriously? Seriously? It doesn’t take long to realize how flagrantly these guidelines are being ignored:

Many application ad networks use the profile pictures of users and their friends.

Application ad networks routinely access loads of profile data from users and their friends. This information is often processed client-side and not sent back to the ad network servers, but you’d probably be stunned at just how much data is sifted through.

User data is routinely sent back to application ad networks. I can cite several examples of this, but I hadn’t brought them up sooner as I’ve been working on sorting through them and gathering records of what happens. I did mention one example over a month ago on this very blog, yet the methods of that particular ad network have not changed at all in the mean time, nor has Facebook taken any action against them.

The session secret of an application is routinely passed on to application ad networks. This enables the ad network server to make requests to Facebook via the API and access user data. Regardless of whether such action happens (and it does, by the way), an application should never share its session secret with outside web sites. In several cases, the session secret is inadverently recorded by Google Analytics – and that includes ad network Analytics accounts.

As an example of ad networks accessing user data, remember SocialReach? This very moment, one application with over 10 million monthly active users is serving SocialReach ads scripts which make Facebook API requests from the SocialReach web site. These are the same FQL queries SocialReach made prior to Facebook banning it a while back. Update: On further investigation, it appears the SocialReach code operates client-side, though the session secret is still passed on to SocialReach and the code does make API requests.

As I said, I’ve been planning to talk more about this, but was still working on putting everything together and making further investigations. With the sudden press about application advertising, I figured I should go ahead and at least note how badly reality differs from what Facebook seems to be trying to portray. If news sites want proof or more specifics on the problems I’ve described, feel free to get in touch.

Part of what leaves me bewildered is that if I can uncover so many problems in my research, how does Facebook not notice them? Some of these issues are even occurring in Facebook Verified Applications. I simply don’t understand how Facebook can make the kinds of statements AllFacebook published in light of all the obvious issues still present.

I just completed an interesting two-question survey via an official link on Facebook. The poll first asked to what extent, on a five-point scale from “completely disagree” to “completely agree,” I agreed with this statement: “Facebook cares about its users’ privacy and security.” Next, Facebook asked if I would describe myself as:

Very open – I wouldn’t mind if everyone could see all of the information I share on Facebook

In between – I don’t mind if everyone can see some of my information, but certain information I only want to share with my close friends or family

Private – I only share things with people I know

The survey came from the Facebook Research Team. I’m guessing the first question is not only to gauge people’s image of Facebook but a statistic to trumpet if most users answer positively. (In light of Facebook’s naivete towards Platform privacy and security, I did not.) The second question is interesting in light of Facebook’s shifts from more controlled/private to more open/public. And as Bruce Schneier recently discussed in an essay on privacy salience, Facebook probably hopes most users fall into the “very open” category.

I certainly look forward to seeing the results of this survey if they’re released.

If you are interested in learning about how to get the most out of Twitter, I recommend listening to Ryan and Bo in the Twooting podcast. You can also find them on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/thepodcast.

I am now offering monthly briefings, tailored to organizations that want to build and sustain security awareness for staff. Just because your security team is too busy to do its own training and awareness doesn’t mean you can’t have an economical way to address human security risks. Please call or email me at the coordinates below…

I can’t emphasize this enough: As the Facebook Platform is currently setup, nearly any XSS vulnerability in an application allows my hack from last month (I may need a name for this thing soon) to succeed.

Tonight, after two hours of poking around various applications, I once again successfully used my hack to access profile information via an XSS hole in an FBML application. This particular application has over 10 million monthly active users. It also luckily prevents a clickjacking install, but with such wide reach, a relaunch of the hack would affect many users anyway.

If any technology news site wants a great story on the security of the Facebook Platform, please get in touch – I simply want to get the word out on this issue to raise user awareness.